Johnston County board reviews Innovation Academy admissions, enrollment and costs in informational work session

The Johnston County Public Schools Board of Education on Thursday held an informational work session on Innovation Academy, reviewing the program’s history, admission rubric, student demographics, schedule and transportation costs. Board Chair Dr. Bracey opened the meeting by noting, “This is a work session; there are no votes being taken tonight,” and said the intent was to give the full board the chance to receive information in public.

The presentation, led by Anna Kuykendahl (district staff/presenter) and principal Miss Patton (Principal, Innovation Academy), walked the board through the school’s original charter intent, current student makeup, recruitment timeline and operational details. The discussion centered on how the school’s stated purpose — serving underserved students in the I‑95 corridor — has translated into admissions practice and current enrollment.

Why it matters: Innovation Academy is a countywide choice middle school with a cap of 100 students per incoming grade; its admissions rubric and transportation patterns affect which students countywide can attend and the district’s transportation spending. Board members pressed staff for clearer documentation of the rubric, evidence of the school meeting its original goals, and details about how admissions priorities are applied in practice.

The board heard that Innovation Academy was initially conceived as a lab-style feeder to district choice programs and as a way to reach underrepresented students in the I‑95 corridor. Miss Patton said the original plan to partner with a university and operate as a lab school “did not come to fruition,” and that visits from outside educators slowed after COVID. She said some external visitors have included the Friday Institute and NC State, and that JoCoTeach has continued to engage with Innovation Academy teachers.

On admissions and rubric: Miss Patton described the school’s application as following the district’s choice-program timeline: applications opened Jan. 8, 2025, an open house was scheduled for Feb. 13, 2025, and applications close March 13, 2025. She said Innovation Academy does not interview applicants: “We do not do interviews,” and that the school uses a points rubric to prioritize applicants. The rubric gives four points for residence in the I‑95 corridor, three points for a sibling already enrolled at Innovation Academy, and additional points for items such as attendance, parent responses, teacher references and whether the family attended an open house.

Board members questioned how non‑I‑95 applicants can overcome the I‑95 point preference. Staff explained the rubric is additive and applicants can gain points in other categories, but also acknowledged a past error that caused two I‑95 schools (Forbes Elementary and Glendale Kenley Elementary) to be omitted from the I‑95 corridor list on the rubric in prior years. Miss Patton said that omission likely affected past selections and that the district will reexamine the corridor list going forward.

Admission outcomes and demographics: For the incoming sixth grade cohort, staff reported 58 applicants from I‑95 corridor elementary schools; 44 offers were made to those students (a 76% offer rate) and 36 accepted (62% of applicants). For non‑I‑95 applicants, 148 applied, 69 were offered seats (47% offer rate), and 41% accepted. Staff said those counts came from the district student information system during the July transition from PowerSchool to Infinite Campus.

Enrollment, capacity and attrition: Innovation Academy’s building capacity is listed as 390 and the school typically caps cohorts at 100 students. In July the school’s 6–12 enrollment snapshot showed about 268 students; current enrollment figures change across the year, and board members were told Innovation’s cohort sizes decline in later grades. Staff cited athletics and extracurricular availability at base schools as a leading reason some students leave Innovation after sixth grade; inability to participate in home-school athletics without a parent driving daily is a recurring factor. Miss Patton said the school loses some students back to larger middle schools for reasons including athletics and family preference.

Schedule, instructional model and staffing: The presentation described three scheduling elements unique to Innovation Academy—Connect (afternoon intervention/enrichment), Renewal (a 25‑minute midday break that functions like recess in multiple formats) and Community (a 15‑minute Friday assembly for community-building). Staff said the school follows district pacing, curriculum and assessments; project-based learning and some standards-based practices appear in places where they align to district curriculum but are not the school’s defining daily model.

Staffing listed for Innovation Academy included one principal, one assistant principal, approximately 19.2 teachers (including a 0.2 ESL allocation), one counselor, specialists and support staff. Class-size ranges when classes are at capacity were described as 22–31 students; smaller classes exist in the school’s smaller eighth‑grade cohort (as low as 10 students in some classes this year).

Transportation and costs: Staff provided transportation cost figures for the program: $957,377 for the previous year and a projected $946,707 for the current year. The presenter confirmed most students ride buses and that transporting students countywide accounts for a measurable portion of the district’s transportation budget (presenter noted the share at roughly 5.1% when asked during the meeting). Board members asked for context about what percentage of the overall transportation budget these figures represent.

Student achievement: Staff showed historical school report card data. Innovation Academy was a “C” school in 2019 with a composite score of about 62 and did not meet growth; after alignment with district curriculum and pacing the school’s composite scores rose into the mid‑70s (B range) while meeting growth in subsequent years. Presenters cautioned that 8th‑grade math proficiency rates are affected by the district practice of submitting Math I results separately and that comparisons need that context.

Board questions and next steps: Board members repeatedly asked to see the admissions application and rubric in full; staff agreed to provide the application questions and the rubric documentation to the board. Several members urged a review of how the I‑95 corridor priority is applied, and requested clarification of whether the corridor list and rubric reflect the original intent to prioritize underserved students. Members also requested more detail on transportation budgeting and the effects of extracurricular offerings on retention.

No formal actions were taken during the meeting; the session was an information-only work session and was recorded and livestreamed. Staff said they will provide access to the application materials, confirm corrected I‑95 corridor school lists, and follow up on transportation budget context for a future board discussion.

The board adjourned the work session after closing remarks thanking Innovation Academy staff and families for attending.